Anonymous wrote:I have a friend who graduated from a well-regarded LAC. After inquiring about his experience there, he adamantly mentioned he would never send his children to an LAC. When I asked why, he gave these reasons, mentioning that while exceptions exist, this is a common theme. Are these sentiments accurate? Is it a waste of money to go to an LAC at this time?
Universities offer their own versions of LACs with Honors Programs, Colleges of Arts and Letters, and so forth, while providing an expansive course selection, a richer diversity of students, a greater selection of research opportunities, and a better social and athletic culture. LACs, by comparison, are limited. Things like greater faculty accessibility and small classes are no longer distinguishing factors, as many top universities like Yale and Notre Dame can flaunt them as well, as well as hiring a much more impressive and accomplished group of scholars. State U Honors provide the LAC experience at a quarter of the price. There is simply no reason to pay $60K for a no-name LAC when a well-regarded university can open so many doors- both in and out of college.
A large reason LACs were so excellent in the past was because of gender-separation in higher education. Because many universities were historically male-only, many co-ed/women-only LACs attracted the very best women in the country. Today, as all top universities are co-educational, this factor can no longer be attributed.
Many LACs have moved past taking the very best candidates- the ones with the most academic potential- in lieu of radically liberal students who care only about their identity politics, and not of the pedagogy, as they once did. They come to these colleges not to learn, but to try to force their views in a small population where administrators are under heavy pressure to respond to them. They're hostile to engaging with disagreement and viciously berate conservatives and white students. They're not the leading scientists, politicians, businessmen, artists, and educators their alumni were- those students are now attending universities. The admission committees are encouraging this, turning down students with better academic achievements for a token student of color or low income student.
A liberal arts education is not sought out as it one did- in fact, it is often considered a joke degree. Practical skills and experience are critical, and LACs do poorly in preparing their graduates for that. Many of them have no engineering or business programs, their computer science and math programs are lackluster, and their career services are non-existent on the whole. Employers and recruiters seldom visit LACs. Upon comparing post-grad prospects at a university vs a LAC, you will see how severe the difference is.
A comparison between universities and LACs shows that while most LACs have remained stagnant, if not on a decline, on their acceptance rates, yields, and SAT averages, most universities are becoming more and more selective and drawing stronger students. Take Northwestern and U'Chicago, with their 30-40% admit rates only a few years ago, who're now at 8-12% and whose yields have skyrocketed. Haverford, a top ten LAC, has, for the last 10 years, had the same admit rate of ~25%, and their yield hasn't ever increased. Actually, they have taken many more students via Early Decision, gaming their yield, so the applicants admitted through Regular Decision are enrolling less than they used to.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Please. If anything, this board is full of LAC-boosters who put down state schools any chance they get. Very tiresome and insecure.